coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Gdańsk.
5.  On 9 August 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud and placed in pre-trial detention. The grounds for this decision are unknown, since the applicant has not produced a copy of it.
6.  On 3 November 2006 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) extended the applicant’s detention until 9 February 2007. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court further found that there was a risk that the applicant might go into hiding, given that earlier he could not be found at his place of permanent residence.
7.  The applicant submitted that he unsuccessfully appealed against decisions extending his detention.
8.  The applicant maintained that during his arrest he was treated in a degrading manner by police officers and that he was subjected to threats. On 19 February 2007 the Gdańsk District Prosecutor instituted an investigation into the applicant’s complaints against the police officers. The investigation is still continuing.
9.  The applicant submitted that during his detention his correspondence was censored by the authorities. He produced five envelopes. All the envelopes bear a stamp that reads: “Censored, date ..., Prosecutor” (Ocenzurowano, dnia ... Prokurator). Those envelopes contained letters from:
1) the Penitentiary Association “Patronat” (Stowarzyszenie Penitencjarne “Patronat”), a non-governmental organisation, acting, inter alia, on behalf of prisoners and former prisoners, sent on 30 August 2006;
2) the Supreme Court, sent on 26 September 2006;
3) the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, sent on 27 September 2006;
4) the Ministry of Justice; sent on 27 September 2006;
5) the Ombudsman, sent on 28 September 2006.
10.  The applicant produced one envelope that indicates as the addressee of the letter the Governor of Sztum Prison and bears a stamp that reads: “Censored, date ..., Prosecutor” (Ocenzurowano, dnia ... Prokurator). A hand-written note indicates case file no. IC 119/05.
11.  One envelope bears traces of having been opened - its sides were cut open and resealed using self-adhesive tape.
12.  The applicant submitted that a letter addressed to him by the Court had been opened and read by the authorities. In a note sent to the applicant from Sztum Prison (Zakład Karny) on 21 December 2006, he was informed that on 29 November 2006 a letter from the European Court of Human Rights to the applicant had been delivered by the District Prosecutor’s Office. The note further states that the letter had clearly been damaged.
4.  The applicant, Ms Marianna Cieślak, is a Polish national who was born in 1923 and lives in Bobolice.
5. The applicant’s mother-in-law died on 6 October 1975. During the proceedings for division of inheritance, on 30 October 1980 the Mayor of Warsaw’s Wola District (Naczelnik Dzielnicy Warszawa Wola – hereafter, “the Mayor”) expropriated part of the land belonging to the applicant’s family.
6.  On 22 February 1981 the applicant’s husband inherited the plot of land in Warsaw. On 17 August 1988, after his death, the applicant became the co-owner of the land.
7.  The applicant instituted proceedings for annulment of the Mayor’s decision. On 22 March 1991 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) decided that the expropriation decision had been taken in flagrant infringement of the law.
8.  On 29 February 1996 the Warsaw Governor’s Office (Urząd Wojewódzki) quashed the Mayor’s decision and dismissed an application by the Polish Allotment Association (Polski Związek Działkowy) for expropriation of the land. The Association appealed. On 20 January 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Warsaw Governor’s Office’s decision.
9.  On 10 March 1995 the applicant and two other plaintiffs lodged with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a claim for repossession of the expropriated land. The case was transmitted to the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
10.  On 21 November 2000 the Regional Court gave a preliminary judgment (wyrok wstępny). It decided that the property should be returned, and the parties should retain possession of the land until financial claims had been completed. The applicant appealed.
11.  On 18 January 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the Regional Court’s judgment on the right to retain possession until the completion of financial claims.
12.  On 25 February 2004 the Regional Court gave judgment. It decided that the property should be returned. The Polish Allotment Association appealed.
13.  On 20 December 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. On 15 June 2006 it issued a writ of enforcement.
14.  On 22 January 2005 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Court of Appeal a complaint under the provisions of the 17 June 2004 Act on complaints about a breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004.
15.  On 23 March 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act had legal effect from its date of entry into force. It found that during the relevant part of the proceedings there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the domestic court. In that connection, the court held that there had been no breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time in the period after 17 September 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in İzmir.
5.  On 26 March 1997 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody. He was accused of having thrown a Molotov cocktail at a building. He was remanded in custody on 27 March 1997.
6.  On 2 April 1997 the İzmir public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the İzmir Assize Court, accusing the applicant of extortion and of preparing a bomb. He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Articles 495 § 1 and 264 § 6 of the Criminal Code.
7.  On 18 September 1997 the applicant was released pending trial.
8.  On 28 June 1999 the İzmir Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him, in total, to six years, eleven months and ten days’ imprisonment, and to a fine.
9.  On 7 May 2001, the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion to the latter. He considered that the judgment of the first-instance court should be upheld. This opinion was not communicated to the applicant.
10.  On 26 September 2001 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
11.  On 24 October 2007 the President of the 6th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation informed the Court of Cassation that, in accordance with domestic law, the principal public prosecutor was not present at the deliberations of the Chamber.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Katowice.
5. On 28 June 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.
6.  On 30 June 2000 the Tychy District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his detention on remand.
7.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on 28 September, 18 December 2000 and on 26 March 2001.
8.  On 8 June 2001 the bill of indictment was lodged.
9.  On 25 June 2001 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) extended the applicant’s detention until 15 January 2002. The court relied on a strong suspicion that he had committed the offence in question, which was supported by evidence. It attached importance to the grave nature of the offence and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on him. In addition, keeping him in custody was necessary to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings. Lastly, the court stressed that there were 3 co‑accused and 26 witnesses involved in the proceedings.
10.  On 16 November 2001 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held 7 hearings in the case.
11.  On 7 January 2002 the Katowice Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 15 May 2002. The court repeated the reasons given previously. Upon an appeal by the applicant, the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld that decision on 6 February 2002.
12.  On 6 May 2002 the Regional Court again extended the applicant’s detention. The court stressed that he was likely to receive a particularly severe sentence.
13.  On 23 May 2002 the Katowice Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment. On 10 July 2002 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal. He was kept in detention pending appeal for the 10 subsequent months.
14.  On 6 March 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment.
15.  On 18 June 2003 the applicant’s lawyer filed a cassation appeal (kasacja) with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
16.  On 24 May 2004 the applicant informed the Registry that his cassation appeal had been rejected by the Supreme Court.
17.  At the time of lodging his application with the Court the applicant was detained in the course of criminal proceedings against him.
18.  On 1 February 2002 the Registry of the Court received a letter from the applicant dated 28 January 2002. The envelope bears a stamp “censored on...” (ocenzurowano dn....) and an illegible signature.
19.  On 28 May 2002 the Registry of the Court received the application form from the applicant (dated 16 May 2002). It was delivered in an envelope bearing a stamp “censored on...” (ocenzurowano dn....). It also bears an illegible signature and a handwritten date, 20 May 2002.
5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Chişinău. He is a pensioner.
6.  On an unspecified date he brought civil proceedings against the Straseni Local Council claiming compensation of 195,500 Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately 14,000 euros (EUR)) for the alleged illegal confiscation by the Soviet authorities of his family’s house back in 1949.
7.  On 26 December 2002, after having exempted the applicant from the duty to pay court fees, the Straseni District Court examined the merits of the case and dismissed it as manifestly ill-founded.
8.  On 7 May 2003 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the same grounds. It did so also after exempting the applicant from the duty to pay court fees.
9.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law and requested, inter alia, to be exempted from the obligation to pay court fees, on account of his poor financial situation. He presented evidence showing that after the payment of all commodities, only MDL 2 were left from his monthly pension.
10.  On 12 August 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice refused to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law on the ground he had failed to pay court fees. It stated that exemption from the obligation to pay court fees was impossible at the stage of an appeal on points of law.
4.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1957 respectively and live in Istanbul.
5.  On 3 and 15 March 1981 the applicants were arrested.
6.  On 26 May 1981 the Ankara Martial Law Court ordered their detention on remand.
7.  On 16 June 1981 the public prosecutor attached to the Adana Martial Law Court filed a bill of indictment against 343 persons, including the applicants, and charged the latter with membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Devrimci Yol - the Revolutionary Way).
8.  On 17 June 1986 the Adana Martial Law Court convicted the applicants as charged.
9.  On an unspecified date the applicants appealed.
10.  On 20 March 1991 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and remitted the case to the Ankara Martial Law Court, since in the meantime the former court had been abolished.
11.  On an unspecified date in 1991 the applicants were released pending trial.
12.  Subsequent to the promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, the Ankara Assize Court acquired jurisdiction in the applicants’ case.
13.  On 18 June 2001 the Ankara Assize Court convicted Süleyman Eryılmaz under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to death. This sentence was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. Regarding Ferit Çengelli, the first-instance court ordered that the criminal proceedings against him be terminated on the ground that the statutory time‑limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired.
14.  The judgment of the Ankara Assize Court was automatically referred to the Court of Cassation insofar as it concerned Süleyman Eryılmaz, since the latter’s sentence exceeded 15 years’ imprisonment.
15.  On 24 July 2002 the applicants allegedly learned about the outcome of the proceedings before the Ankara Assize Court through a friend.
16.  By a letter dated 7 February 2003, the applicants’ former lawyer informed the Court that the judgment of 18 June 2001 had been served on Ferit Çengelli on 3 February 2003 upon his request, and that the proceedings against Süleyman Eryılmaz were still pending before the Court of Cassation. (From the case file it appears that the State had attempted to serve the judgment on Ferit Çengelli earlier, but had mistakenly sent it to the wrong address.)
17.  According to the documents submitted to the Court by the respondent Government, on 30 October 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the Ankara Assize Court’s judgment of 18 June 2001 insofar as it concerned Süleyman Eryılmaz and remitted the case to the Ankara Assize Court.
18.  According to the information in the case file, the case against Süleyman Eryılmaz is still pending before the Ankara Assize Court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Leskovac, Serbia.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 6 December 1988 the applicant, a labour inspector (inspektor rada), was declared redundant by the Municipality of Leskovac, which decision entered into force on 29 December 1990.
8.  On 22 February 1991 the applicant therefore filed a claim with the Labour Court (Osnovni sud udruženog rada) in Vranje, seeking reinstatement or severance pay as provided for in the relevant domestic legislation.
9.  Following a remittal, on 3 September 1991 this court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Leskovac.
10.  Between 2 June 1992 and 5 January 1998 a total of fourteen separate decisions were adopted by the Municipal Court, at first instance, the District Court (Okružni sud) in Leskovac, on appeal, and the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Srbije) at third instance.
11.  Following a remittal, on 16 March 1998 the Municipal Court again ruled in favour of the applicant.
12.  On 5 June 1998 the District Court upheld this judgment on appeal and it thereby became final.
13.  On 18 March 1999 the Municipal Court issued a separate decision, ordering the enforcement of this judgment.
14.  On 21 November 2000, however, the same court accepted the respondent’s request for the re-opening of the labour dispute.
15.  On 21 February 2001 and 23 May 2002 the District Court and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this decision.
16.  On 21 November 2002 the Municipal Court therefore re-opened the proceedings in question.
17.  The hearing scheduled for 21 April 2004 was adjourned because of the presiding judge’s illness.
18.  On 3 March 2005 the President of the Municipal Court appointed another presiding judge to deal with the case, the reason being that the applicant had, in the meantime, filed a criminal complaint against the former.
19.  On 18 April 2005 and 18 May 2005 two separate hearing were held.
20.  On 24 May 2005 the Municipal Court appointed a financial expert and ordered him to calculate the amount of salary arrears sought by the applicant.
21.  On 5 April 2006 the Municipal Court appointed another financial expert to carry out this order.
22.  On 19 July 2006 the Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant. It awarded him most of the salary arrears and severance pay requested, but refused his claim for reinstatement since he had reached retirement age in the meantime.
23.  On 1 December 2006 the District Court quashed this judgment on appeal and remitted the case to the Municipal Court.
24.  On 24 January 2007 the Municipal Court again ruled partly in favour of the applicant.
25.  On 26 April 2007, however, the District Court rejected the applicant’s claims in their entirety.
26.  On an unspecified date thereafter the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. According to the information made available to the Court by the parties to date, the case is apparently still pending before the Supreme Court.
27.  It would appear that throughout the above proceedings the applicant had represented himself.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Ploieşti.
5.  The Ploieşti police started an investigation into allegations that the applicant had stolen petroleum products from his employer, an oil company.
6.  On 6 June 2002, the applicant was apprehended by the police.
On 7 June 2002 the prosecutor attached to the Prahova County Court issued an arrest warrant against the applicant for thirty days, until 6 July 2002. The prosecutor’s order gave the following reasons for seeking the applicant’s arrest:
“the offence is punishable by more than two years’ detention, and [the applicant’s] continued liberty represents a threat to ordre public.”
7.  On 4 July 2002 the applicant was brought before the County Court in order to have the lawfulness of his committal for trial and of his pre-trial detention verified. The applicant’s lawyer requested that the detention order be set aside and the applicant released, arguing, in particular, that the arrest warrant was unlawful and that the measure of placing the applicant in pre‑trial detention had been taken automatically and too easily, as there was no evidence that he had committed the offence in question.
8.  On 4 July 2002 the Prahova County Court, considering that the reasons justifying the initial measure remained unchanged, ordered the applicant’s detention in custody for thirty more days, namely until 5 August 2002. It noted that its decision was subject to appeal at the same time as the judgment on the merits of the case.
9.  Four more hearings took place before the County Court. Each time the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended for similar reasons to those of 4 July 2002, until the judgment on the merits was delivered. No further grounds were given by the County Court.
10.  On 9 October 2002 the Prahova County Court convicted the applicant of aggravated theft and imposed a one-year suspended sentence.
11.  The applicant was released from custody on 10 October 2002.
12.  The Supreme Court of Justice dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld the County Court’s judgment in a final decision of 7 July 2003.
13.  Meanwhile, on 8 August 2002, the applicant was dismissed from his job in application of the Labour Code, as his detention had exceeded sixty days. He found a new job on 12 December 2004.
6.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Chişinău.
7.  During the period with which the application is concerned, Ms Duca was the manager of a private company. In 1998 two employees of the company applied to the Chişinău District Court for a declaration of their status as founders of the company. In 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice, in a final decision, dismissed their application.
8.  In 1999 the plaintiffs in the above proceedings lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant on charges of large-scale theft and forgery of public documents. On 11 August 1999 the Chişinău District Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on the above charges.
9.  On 1 November 2002 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. On 12 December 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court partially quashed the judgment of the first instance court. The proceedings ended with the final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 18 February 2003, acquitting the applicant.
10.  During the proceedings the applicant was detained twice: first, on remand, between 21 December 2001 and 24 April 2002 and secondly, after being convicted, between 1 November 2002 and 12 December 2002.
11.  According to the applicant, during her first detention the prison authorities interfered constantly with her correspondence with her lawyers.
12.  Following her acquittal, the applicant introduced a civil action against the Government in accordance with Law No. 1545 (see the “Relevant Domestic Law”), claiming compensation of 461,800 euros (EUR) for the illegal acts of the investigation organs, the prosecution and the courts.
13.  On 1 September 2004 the Râşcani District Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded her a lump sum of 150,000 Moldovan lei (the equivalent of EUR 10,289 at the time). It stated inter alia that:
“On 11 August 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant....
...
[account of the proceedings]
...
On 18 February 2003 the Court of Appeal acquitted her on the ground that no criminal offence was ever committed. Thus, the applicant was illegally charged on four occasions. She was under an obligation not to leave the city, being thus limited in her freedom of movement for 778 days. She was illegally detained in prison for 169 days and 7 hours, of which 111 days were spent in the Remand Centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
It is obvious that while being charged illegally with a criminal offence, the applicant and her family endured mental suffering.
Moreover, the applicant’s lawyer declared that she was detained in inhuman conditions in the Remand Centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which was confirmed by the CPT report of 2001.
There is no doubt that these circumstances intensified her moral suffering.”
14.  On 1 December 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the judgment.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the interference by the prison authorities with her right to respect for her correspondence with her lawyers.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Székesfehérvár.
5.  In the context of her dismissal from employment with the State Railways, on 29 April 2003 the applicant brought an action before the Székesfehérvár Labour Court claiming outstanding wages. She requested legal aid. On 9 October 2003 the case was transferred to the Budapest Labour Court. However, a legal-aid lawyer was appointed for the applicant only on 22 March 2004.
6.  On 1 September 2004 the lawyer submitted the applicant’s recapitulated action.
7.  On 5 and 12 May and 29 September 2005 hearings took place. On the latter date, a partial decision was adopted.
8.  On 8 May 2006 the remainder of the applicant’s claims was partially accepted. On 25 September 2006 the applicant appealed.
9.  On 11 July 2007 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first instance decision.